The futility of wind power

15 thoughts on “The futility of wind power

    • You’re absolutely right. All our readers could benefit from Jon Boone.

  1. Yes but in picture two, the backup plant is using 25-30% less energy so that’s a good thing right?

  2. Jef, it is not clear that the “backup” plant (backup is probably not the correct word to use; more like “intertwined”) actually burns less fuel, nor produces less emissions. There has never been a demonstration of this and lots of reason why it might not be true. Google “kent hawkins masterresource” for some of those reasons.

  3. With wind we will have both. Ramping up and down a coal or any thermal generation station uses more fuel than a steady output. The extreme powering up and powering down associated with wind causes a wasteful use of fuel to “intertwine” with wind. Monitoring fuel consumption associated with the need to support wind production has shown we would be better off without wind.

  4. In what will likely be the last nail in Greece’s economic coffin, politicians have devised a way to increase economic growth in the country – through green energy:

    “Prime Minister George A. Papandreou had a grand idea to revive growth: sun-drenched islands would be dotted with solar panels and wind turbines to transform the country into a ‘green economy,’ attracting badly needed investments and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.”

    I wonder if Mr. Papandreou has been talking with Dalton McGuinty?

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-turns-to-the-last-refuge-of-doomed-economies-green-energy-2011-6#ixzz1PoiyH2oG

  5. If they scrape that barrel now, then their whole country will dissapear down the sink, and knowone will want to plug that hole.

  6. The global renewables community play jurisdictions off against one another, just like sport franchises do in getting governments and taxpayers to fund arenas and stadiums. No wonder Tyler Hamilton says the Euro-term for them is LOCUSTS.

  7. The IPCC renewable energy fiasco is not over yet. Over at the website, Bishop Hill, bloggers are examining the IPCC claims about solar, biomass and hydro:

    “At least half of the lead authors of the hydropower chapter are not independent scientists, but have a vested interest in the promotion of hydropower. This creates a conflict of interest, which is reflected throughout the report.” (Mark Lynas)

    I have a feeling that these conflict of interest allegations are not over by a long shot.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/20/this-time-its-hydro.html

    • Much like the McGuinty government, the renewable corps who support their party, the ENGOs who get grant money, the consultants who are paid well to put out reports that suit their employer by conveniently ignoring the bad news…and on and on and on.

      If you question policies or motives, you’ve got to be an evil, extreme right-wing who works for the coal/oil/gas/nazis… whatever. Right?

      Since when did “science” ever have anything to do with anything? It’s been a sham right from the get-go.

Comments are closed.